!King_Amazon! said:
I think I made the analogy clear enough that you would know that I was talking about someone who has a shitty life and is depressed. I even specified at the end that I'm not saying depression (such as the type you described above) doesn't exist, I'm just saying a majority of the people who take anti-depressants don't have that type of depression.
I'm saying the same with ADHD medications. If there is such a thing as ADHD, it's not as common as ADHD medication use.
|
Well, that's why I gave examples of both. I stated that for someone whose only problem is that he is depressed then anti-depressants are fine.
For someone who is depressed because of deplorable living conditions, the anti-depressants
still fix the depression. That is what they are meant to do, and that is it. They are not meant to motivate you to fix your lamentable life, they are meant to help you cope with it. In this case anti-depressants fix the depression but may exacerbate the other problem. This, then, is the prescribing physicians call. We assume that their education makes them better qualified than us to make that call. Of course, this assumption may be faulty, however that is the assumption that society works by.
It seems to me you don't really have a problem with the medicine itself, you have a problem with the physicians and the assumption that society makes.
Quote:
And no, I don't think medication is "harmless" in either situation. If someone takes anti-depressants to "fix" their shitty situation, they're just covering the underlying problem. To this you suggest, someone should take both anti-depressants and behavioral therapy. Why would they be motivated to take behavioral therapy if they feel their life is fine, even if it isn't?
|
I can't explain why those who are on anti-depressants seek out behavioral therapy. That said, I am positive that someone can. An overwhelming majority of those on anti-depressants also seek the counsel of a psychologist.
Quote:
Giving an unruly sugar rushing kid ritalin to make them behave is not fixing the problem. If they DO have ADHD, that's fine. If they DON'T have ADHD, it's NOT harmless, because it's not going to fix their problem. It will make it look fixed on the surface, but you've still got an unruly sugar rushing kid, they're just drugged. If that problem is not dealt with PROPERLY, it could affect their future.
|
I never claimed that ADHD medicine fixed behavioral problems.
But if there was a medicine that could, would you really oppose it? Even if the effects only lasted while the kid was drugged up, and it didn't really fix what made him unruly, it seems good to me. I'm not saying that the medicine is the
only thing you should give the kid and then neglect it. Of course you should try and make it to where the kid can coincide with society without medication, however if the behavior isn't fixable, isn't a life-time supply of medicine the next best thing? Does it not, after all,
fix what we've been wanting to fix?
It's the same thing with AD[H]D medicine. It does not make you more adept at concentrating once your are off the medicine. It is a temporary fix. However, it gets you through the day. That is what the goal is here. Even with AD[H]D medication I would recommend behavioral therapy alongside. It would be great if we could "fix" the underlying cause, and in some cases this is possible. In most cases, however, that is an unrealistic goal.